Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

Virgin birth, help me defeat this douche

Posted on: March 5, 2009 - 10:41pm

Medievalguy

Posts: 281

Joined: 2007-03-01

Offline

Virgin birth, help me defeat this douche

Hey guys, so I wrote this post on my blog about my religion class debating the virgin birth of Jesus, and this guy gets on there and posts the following. I'm not very good at constructing arguements, and know nothing of the Bayes’ Theorem. Anyone feel like taking a swing at him? I think the weakness of his argument lies in using the bible in the theorem.... Anyways, here's what he said:

Your reasoning displays an understanding of probability that is about 300 years out of date. Are you familiar with Bayes’ Theorem?

In your argument, you merely consider the intrinsic probability of the Virgin Birth hypothesis i.e. the probablity of the virgin birth given our background knowledge- Pr(H/B)

-Pr(not-H/E&B) (The probablity of the miricle’s not occuring given the total evidence)

These values can be found by the following equation:

Pr(H/B) divided by Pr(not-H/B) multiplied by Pr(E/H&B) divided by Pr(E/not-H&B)

The only evidence available to both sides is the testimony of the Virgin Birth found in Matthew and Luke- the question is therefor, how probable is it, given our background information, that two books reference the virgin birth as an historical fact if:

(a) The Virgin Birth actually occured or (b) The Virgin Virth was an invention

The Virgin Birth is found in two biographies of Jesus’s life- Matthew and Luke. While these are two separate books, they share the same source material- either oral tradition or the hypothetical “Q” document. However, Mark, which used the same source fails to mention the Virgin Birth, suggesting that this important detail was not to be found in the shared source. This means that the two accounts of the Virgin Birth are independant. This is further evidenced by the fact that the two accounts are completely different from one another in terms of language, giving us no reason to suppose that they share the same source.

So we have two indepenent witness accounts of the Virgin Birth, only one of which cites the Old Testament allusion which you claim inspired the story.

We must also ask, what of Joseph? We are told that he wanted to quietly divorce Mary- why then would he change his mind, being a good man, on the basis of a lie?

In order to affirm or deny the Joseph claim, one must either prove or disprove the historicity of that particular section.

Also, I find it amusing that you think that Mary could avoid stoning by simply claiming “God did it”. As if people would actually believe her. She’d be better pressed claiming she was raped or something- people back then wern’t gullibal fools, they knew that a man and woman were needed for a baby to be born.

Also, the background knowledge B must be taken into consideration. This is where I believe the debate will end up- does God exist? This is because your background knowledge will include the statement (God does not exist) whilst the theists will include the statement (God exists). The existence of God lends little support to H UNLESS it can be shown that H can be shown to have occured in a significant socio-relgious context. And it clearly did. The life of Jesus was one unparralleded in history. It is historically accepted that Jesus understood himself as God incarnate- he also had a ministry of faith healings and exorcisms. The events surrounding his apparent Ressurection are best explained BY the Resurection hypothesis etc.

Also, he fulifilled many roles that a Messiah would be expected to. He came at a time that Daniel prophesis the Messiah would come. He predicted the 70 AD destruction of the Temple.

The Virgin Birth passage in the O.T. was a messianic prophesy.

Thus, given that Jesus is very likely the jewish messiah, and that God very likely exists and so can perform miricles, it is very likely that God could cause the virgin birth.

I’m actually trying to help you here, and am not intending to debate the issue. All I’m doing is providing a plausible and strong argument that you may have to come up against.

Also, I wouldn’t use the “pagan paralles” argument- you are way on the fringe of scholarship there my friend. No modern, credential Jesus scholar believes that the paralles actually exist, nevermind inspired the Gospel’s account of Jesus.

And Odd Innuendo, you clearly arn’t familiar with the concept of a miricle?

It saddens me when a perfectly reasonable field of study such as statistics is hijacked like this.

Where to begin...

His statistical argument is nonsensical. Statistical analysis relies on observed results. Bayes Theorem in particular relies heavily on observed results (you can Google it - it's not terribly difficult to understand). As far as I know, there haven't been any reputably observed virgin births, well, ever. If he's arguing that there was one virgin birth in history out of the billions and billions of births there have been, then the probably of a virgin birth is effectively zero. He seems to be using the variable of "background knowledge" (of the Bible, I assume) as a crutch for evidence.

There's plenty more wrong with his argument, particularly a heavy reliance on the Bible being the inerrant word of God.

Both Luke and Matthew rely on Isaiah 7:14 which is incorrectly translated or interpreted by Christians to say a virgin will give birth. In Jewish traditions and translation it says a young woman will and they see it as occurring in their time period.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.

Hey guys, so I wrote this post on my blog about my religion class debating the virgin birth of Jesus, and this guy gets on there and posts the following. I'm not very good at constructing arguements, and know nothing of the Bayes’ Theorem. Anyone feel like taking a swing at him? I think the weakness of his argument lies in using the bible in the theorem.... Anyways, here's what he said:

Your reasoning displays an understanding of probability that is about 300 years out of date. Are you familiar with Bayes’ Theorem?

I have no idea of how probability got into the discussion. I thing is or is not. This is supposedly as one time event. If this were a probability matter, we have odds of billions to one.

Or we can look at all the other children of gods and say it is normal for the children of gods.

Medievalguy wrote:

So we have two indepenent witness accounts of the Virgin Birth, only one of which cites the Old Testament allusion which you claim inspired the story.

What independent witnesses? The word witness has a meaning. A witness to a virgin birth would have to examine the virgin while pregnant to establish just eligability for virgin status. Intactae does not mean no sperm involved. Regenerating hymens are known.

Witness does not mean some asshole who makes a claim.

The fact is a human male requires both X and Y chromosomes. Women have only X chromosomes. God's got human sperm.

End of discussion.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

I have no idea of how probability got into the discussion. I thing is or is not. This is supposedly as one time event. If this were a probability matter, we have odds of billions to one.

I have to agree with you here. My office has been through two hundred year floods in the past 15 years. While it is a big deal to me when it happens, it is not a big deal as far as probability theory goes. It would be very insipid to think that the fact that it had happened once would mean that I am safe for another century. The only thing that you can take from probability theory is that such a flood probably happens about 100 times in 10,000 years. Past that, there is no real reason to think that it could not happen again the day after the building department gives my employer a brand new certificate of occupancy.

Now if we apply a similar analysis to virgin birth, we can see that probability arguments do not really help theists seeking to establish that something supernatural happened. Just for grins, let's say that the probability of a mammalian parthenogenesis are quite long indeed. Let's say that they are so long that it is reasonable for there to only be a single example ever. If we want a real number here, let me suggest the odds are 1:1x10^50.

Well that simply does not mean that there can only be one ever. There could be three happening one right after the other in the same city and the same year. There would be nothing special about such an occurrence. I suppose that one could call that odd but it would be an allowable fact of nature, not the supernatural thing that the theists want it to be.

In short, if something is probable (however slim the odds are), then it is possible. If something is possible then it is subject to a naturalistic explanation and therefore the whole “god did it” argument falls apart. So probable=not a miracle.

The problem is there is absolutly no claim of that in the bible, not to mention that GOD has no "material" he is invisable and inmaterial.

So where is this idiot's AMA peer reviewed material proving magical DNA, even in asexual species?(which the bible makes no mention of)

The only explanation for the virgin birth is "POOF"

I wouldn't worry a bit about this hocus pokus crap.

The ultimate goal is that this moron believes that an invisable penis provided super natural sperm to knock up a girl with the naked assertion of "God did it" with out any replication or falsification.

We know that brooms exist, and we know that an actor playing Harry Potter exists, so therefore boys can fly around on brooms?

If this gap argument were any bigger Pamala Anderson would say, "And I thought my pussy had a gap in it".

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

I've checked out this "miricle" thing he mentions four times and apparently the only thing it could be is a diminutive person from Serbia, which really throws a whole new slant on the "chosen people" delusion.

There is a false notion that the term "virgin" in the gospels is simply a mistranslation of "young woman". On the contrary the guys were really trying to get the birth in line with what they reckoned was a "prophecy" which would validate messianic claims on behalf of ther favourite little baby (Baby Slobodan, if the "miricle" fits my theory above). The false notion is based on the correct observation that Isaiah, in his prediction, used the word "alma", which in Hebrew means only a young woman, and not "betulah" which would have left the intact status of the woman's hymen in no doubt. But Aramaic and Greek were not Hebrew, and by the time the offending texts were being formulated ambiguous use of "alma" abounded in the region and the idea that the messiah would be born of a "virgin" had already apparently gained some currency. And why not? After all, we're not talking about a completely rational belief here - in fact the more absurd some of its tenets the more attractive it was, such was the general mentality and standard of education in the area at the time.

Here's how weird the this belief became (and which is still catholic doctrine). Not only was Mary a virgin upon conceiving but she remained "virgina intacta" after the birth too and on up to the day she died (or shot off into space). Such matters (intact hymens) taxed the minds of men at the time - and apparently some men in frocks even today - so they were quite intricate and exact in their dissemination (pardon the pun) of the subject, which is a good thing because it means we are fortunate to have many literary references to this obsession from the time. There's no doubt about it - when the biblical claim is made on Mary's behalf it means exactly what we have all heard - the poor girl got all the work and none of the fun. And, if we are to believe that Jesus had at least one brother then he too had a virgin birth. And so on.

I have no idea of how probability got into the discussion. I thing is or is not. This is supposedly as one time event. If this were a probability matter, we have odds of billions to one.

I have to agree with you here.

Careful. Agreeing with me can ruin your reputation.

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

My office has been through two hundred year floods in the past 15 years. While it is a big deal to me when it happens, it is not a big deal as far as probability theory goes. It would be very insipid to think that the fact that it had happened once would mean that I am safe for another century. The only thing that you can take from probability theory is that such a flood probably happens about 100 times in 10,000 years. Past that, there is no real reason to think that it could not happen again the day after the building department gives my employer a brand new certificate of occupancy.

Now if we apply a similar analysis to virgin birth, we can see that probability arguments do not really help theists seeking to establish that something supernatural happened. Just for grins, let's say that the probability of a mammalian parthenogenesis are quite long indeed. Let's say that they are so long that it is reasonable for there to only be a single example ever. If we want a real number here, let me suggest the odds are 1:1x10^50.

Now that I think about it a bit more in matters of probability it is a bit more interesting. This breaks down to an a priori and an a posteori cases. The a priori probability is zero. To be even more careful in my statement, there is no a priori probability as it had never happened. Therefore it is in the impossible category. All probabilities have to finite. Zero and one are not probabilities as such numbers cannot be calculated by the methods of probability.

Then there is the a posteori case on the assumption that it did in fact happen once. IF there is no exception to natural law it may become a matter of probability but, as you say with floods, we need a few more cases before we get the data to establish the probability. What is the probability of life starting on earth? It only happened once so we have no idea.

But believers do claim there was an exception to natural law. Because it is an exception there is no way to establish a probability. What are the odds a single parent would send his son to earth on a suicide mission? There is no way to know the fool would pick such a stupid way to do it. But it is still a choice not a random action.

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Well that simply does not mean that there can only be one ever. There could be three happening one right after the other in the same city and the same year. There would be nothing special about such an occurrence. I suppose that one could call that odd but it would be an allowable fact of nature, not the supernatural thing that the theists want it to be.

In short, if something is probable (however slim the odds are), then it is possible. If something is possible then it is subject to a naturalistic explanation and therefore the whole “god did it” argument falls apart. So probable=not a miracle.

Well said. Now Medievalguyhas at least three ways to answer the issue. Debating a believer is like wrestling a pig. You can fill in the rest.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

As far as fulfilling Biblical prophecies, you would do well to direct him to John 7:41-42. Also, if he is maintaining that the virgin birth happened, then Jesus isn't biologically related to Joseph, and therefore not of the lineage of David, and therefore doesn't fulfill the most-referenced prophecy that he was said to.

"Do not, as some ungracious pastors do, show me the steep and thorny way to heaven. Whiles, like a puff'd and reckless libertine, himself the primrose path of dalliance treads. And recks not his own rede."

My mates Matthew and Luke wrote in their excursion reports that they saw Elvis come back to Earth in a spaceship. Mark, who was with them at the time, failed to mention this small detail in his report. Therefore it is true. The written testimony of two mates who happen to be in the "I believe Elvis travels in a spaceship" club is obviously undeniable.

I don't understand why we (or Chistians) try to seriously debate this topic. It doesn't matter how unscientific or unlikely it is, they can just say "I believe in God and he performs magic so he can do whatever he wants."

I prefer to say that the bible is fiction and therefore the events in it are no more worth debating than whether the One Ring was actually destroyed in Mount Doom (or whatever, I can't be bothered checking fiction names at the moment.... because it doesn't matter!!)

Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.

Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51

"Is it more likely that the laws of nature were suspended or that a hebrew slut would lie?"

How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself?- Ricky Gervais

It's not that I don't believe Hitchen's said that, but I really want to know where so that I can listen to everything else he says.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."

The Virgin Birth is found in two biographies of Jesus’s life- Matthew and Luke. While these are two separate books, they share the same source material- either oral tradition or the hypothetical “Q” document. However, Mark, which used the same source fails to mention the Virgin Birth, suggesting that this important detail was not to be found in the shared source. This means that the two accounts of the Virgin Birth are independant. This is further evidenced by the fact that the two accounts are completely different from one another in terms of language, giving us no reason to suppose that they share the same source.

...

From http://www.near-death.com/experiences/origen048.html: "In the catacombs at Rome was preserved a relic of the old Mithraic worship. It was a picture of the infant Mithra seated in the lap of his virgin mother, while on their knees before him were Persian Magi adoring him and offering gifts."

Worship of Mithras reaches back before 600 BC. Plenty of other sources of the same type of legend (virgin birth) are speckled all over history. The claim that the documents were "independent" is completely incredulous.

And even if it was credulous, there is a lot of difference between inventing electromagnetic engine and virgin birth independently - all you need for the second is the wish for the bitch to be "pure" for your God's cock. The myth is a necessity - two cocks equate a whore even today.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.

I also read it in his book, I believe. You'll need to dig around to find it in a WAV file, I'll keep looking.

How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself?- Ricky Gervais

The bible also claims Jesus'blood lines could be traced (through joseph) back to David ... they cant have it both ways ... if Mary was a virgin and was impregnated by some psychotic deity, then the claim that Jesus was a descendent of David is patently false. If he WAS a descendent of David, then clearly it was Joseph that knocked the tart up, not Yahweh ....

Who fucking cares ... it's all the meanderings of bronze-age goat herders and itinerant musicians anyway.

I also read it in his book, I believe. You'll need to dig around to find it in a WAV file, I'll keep looking.

Thank you, very much.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."

It is an amusing fantasy however it is not a matter of any kind of debate. It is a fact or it is not.

It can only be asserted a fact by reference to competent and trustworthy sources who conducted a vaginal exam post partum and declared it a fact.

As there is no such testimony on record the assertion is meaningless.

If any axiom says it all it would be "Opinions are like assholes", the only verification anyone of any position can rely on is scrutiny outside one's own whims. Not based on popularity, but one of insistence of independent replication and falsification outside ones own pet whims.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

... If any axiom says it all it would be "Opinions are like assholes", the only verification anyone of any position can rely on is scrutiny outside one's own whims. Not based on popularity, but one of insistence of independent replication and falsification outside ones own pet whims.

One may insert any miracle one wishes in place of this virgin birth issue.

However it is also necessary to distinguish between a recounting of what happened and in fact testimony of what happened. While one may like the idea of a resurrection we have no testimony to that event. We have only stories about it.

But then the Book of Mormon leads with the testimony of several (seven?) local respected people who swore to having seen the golden plates. That says nothing about the contents but gold is gold. In a time of gold coins one expects the metal would be recognized. Did they really? I choose to discount the possibility.

What is not clear in this case is why virginity became an issue. Pre-conception virginity was common and many gods had children by virgins. Hymen intactae after birth is an odd addition which has no obvious merit or addition to the story. Of course chaos theory suggests irrelevant things can become important just as relevant things can become meaningless. One would think biblical evidence that its god is an idiot would matter, rabbits chewing their cud for example, but it does not register.

I have just reviewed the BBC's six parter on the history of Christianity. It touches on all the better known splits and differences but there is really no hint on why the hairsplitting did in fact make for differences. How in the hell do capricious differences become important to people? Are priests to give blessings with three fingers for the trinity or two fingers for the dual nature of Jesus? Caution! Schism Ahead!

And we have had and still do have totally contrary ideas. When Jerusalem was first liberated the Al Aqsa mosque was taken as the temple of Solomon by many including organizations like some monk orders despite the OT and well known history. And the current belief the temple was on that same hill despite Josephus clearly stating the rebuilt temple was in the lower city.

Religion is a form of insanity. There is no other viable explanation as the particulars of religion are both arbitrary and capricious, to a scientifically oriented person random, yet take on lives of their own.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

It's not that I don't believe Hitchen's said that, but I really want to know where so that I can listen to everything else he says.

No, you really don't want that. The guy is a fucking joke.

You're a fucking joke too. I happen to like Hitchens most of the time.

What does "most of the time" mean? Do you agree with his argumentation most of today, but not at 8PM? I will give you the benefit of doubt, assume that you are not retarded and that you mean to agree with some of his views and methods in general.

Well let me ask you on the two major issues: religion and war. Particularly Hitchens' method of arguing against religion and his argumentation for war.

1) Do you agree with his bitter, insulting and derogative stand-up comedy way of "arguing" against all forms of religious belief?

2) Do you subscribe to his religious war-mongering, rabid support for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and open disregard of international law, human rights and human life in general evident in his commentary and debate (including Vanity Fair column, not that I am advertising - the man is the living definition of nihilism disguised as alcoholic stupor and should never be given the time of day, let alone a column)?

If you agree with either of the two, you will give me the benefit of no doubt when it comes to your cognitive faculties.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.

I would take council from Hitchens far more readily than I would you. You sound convinced of your own genius, at least Hichens is drunk most of the time and can sober up.

How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself?- Ricky Gervais

I would take council from Hitchens far more readily than I would you. You sound convinced of your own genius, at least Hichens is drunk most of the time and can sober up.

If I actually considered myself to be a genius, that would probably hit top 10 most severe insults you could give me - the man is clearly less genuine and competent than a circus clown. He might hit the spot in your segment of the public-opinion market, but it doesn't make him any less of a comedy show.

Chomsky used to not want to comment on Hitchens' sudden turn to the radical couch-hawk right wing blogging/commenting/war-mongering, but even he finally came out and called Hitchens for a "sad case".

I understand your need to defend a fellow atheist, but there are atheists and then there is this guy. He is not as much an atheist as he is enjoying his malice. If this is what you identify with when it comes to Hitchens' position on religion, please take my council even if less readily: stop taking his.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.

It's not that I don't believe Hitchen's said that, but I really want to know where so that I can listen to everything else he says.

No, you really don't want that. The guy is a fucking joke.

You're a fucking joke too. I happen to like Hitchens most of the time.

What does "most of the time" mean? Do you agree with his argumentation most of today, but not at 8PM? I will give you the benefit of doubt, assume that you are not retarded and that you mean to agree with some of his views and methods in general.

Well let me ask you on the two major issues: religion and war. Particularly Hitchens' method of arguing against religion and his argumentation for war.

1) Do you agree with his bitter, insulting and derogative stand-up comedy way of "arguing" against all forms of religious belief?

2) Do you subscribe to his religious war-mongering, rabid support for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and open disregard of international law, human rights and human life in general evident in his commentary and debate (including Vanity Fair column, not that I am advertising - the man is the living definition of nihilism disguised as alcoholic stupor and should never be given the time of day, let alone a column)?

If you agree with either of the two, you will give me the benefit of no doubt when it comes to your cognitive faculties.

Oh, please, you butt-hurt-asshole. The fact that you were able to discern exactly what I meant shows that what I meant came across well enough, so you can take your patronizing benefit of the doubt and shove it along with your needless insults. Do I agree with every point Hitchens makes? No. It's not necessary that I do to have found that particular quote funny nor to agree with some of things he does say. That he says some fucked things doesn't invalidate the rest of it. Or, in short, I don't care how you regard Hitchens. I know he's largely a drunken moron when it comes to many of his beliefs and opinions.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."

Oh, please, you butt-hurt-asshole. The fact that you were able to discern exactly what I meant shows that what I meant came across well enough, so you can take your patronizing benefit of the doubt and shove it along with your needless insults.

There you go, we should be even now.

Thomathy wrote:

Do I agree with every point Hitchens makes? No. It's not necessary that I do to have found that particular quote funny nor to agree with some of things he does say.

Hitchens' whole spirit is summed up in that quote: no nuance, all malicious attack through ridicule. He does not miss the greater picture, he defaces is on purpose - far greater crime than simple ignorance. If it wasn't about Hitchens, I would have been more diplomatic about answering your posts. Sorry about that.

Thomathy wrote:

That he says some fucked things doesn't invalidate the rest of it. Or, in short, I don't care how you regard Hitchens. I know he's largely a drunken moron when it comes to many of his beliefs and opinions.

I wish he was a drunken moron. Unfortunately he seems to be a sarcastic comedian taken seriously by both himself and the main stream media circus. The alcohol is a trademark. He probably figured American suckers like it, so I'll just do it. Continuously boasting how he "use to be leftist, but now he's smart instead" is another major part of his act. Considering that TV accounts for more time in an average person's life than any primary, secondary or higher education, the man is a cancer on our collective mental health.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.

I wish he was a drunken moron. Unfortunately he seems to be a sarcastic comedian taken seriously by both himself and the main stream media circus. The alcohol is a trademark. He probably figured American suckers like it, so I'll just do it. Continuously boasting how he "use to be leftist, but now he's smart instead" is another major part of his act. Considering that TV accounts for more time in an average person's life than any primary, secondary or higher education, the man is a cancer on our collective mental health.

First, thanks for the apology, I understand vehemence. I'm not American, ZuS, and I don't watch television. What you say may be true; perhaps your characterisation of Hitchens is accurate, that he's a 'sarcastic comedian' and a 'cancer on our (sic) collective mental health' and if so, it's too bad because despite your aesthetic dislike for the quote, I find it funny (I guess I like sarcastic humour) and agree with the sentiment of ridicule (not with the obviously racist remark indicated by his probably intentional use of Hebrew rather than Jewish).

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."

Cool. I use to listen to his debates and read his commentary because he clearly isn't stupid. I guess that's why he pisses me off far more than any born-to-be-a-crony type of public persona.

Thomathy wrote:

I'm not American, ZuS, and I don't watch television.

Same with me on both accounts. I just try to follow the "intellectual life" of the most aggressive world player and draw conclusions from it. I witnessed the purposeful intellectual decay in Yugoslavia first hand, birth of logic of fear and violence and its results - never diminish the role of power-hungry and megalomanic intellectuals in the worst decisions ever made.

Thomathy wrote:

What you say may be true; perhaps your characterisation of Hitchens is accurate, that he's a 'sarcastic comedian' and a 'cancer on our (sic) collective mental health' and if so, it's too bad because despite your aesthetic dislike for the quote

Witty remarks and sarcasm are weapons, a certain mood is the desired result. People say that jokes are only funny if they are 50% the truth. If so, I say that the ignored 50% of the truth is usually the nuance than can make the difference between destructive sarcasm and constructive irony. I've seen it at work in public space of my native country - sometimes its the difference between peace and war. I would be hard pressed to call that an aestetic dislike. A comedian is a soldier shooting bullets far more dangerous than live rounds from a gun.

Thomathy wrote:

, I find it funny (I guess I like sarcastic humour) and agree with the sentiment of ridicule (not with the obviously racist remark indicated by his probably intentional use of Hebrew rather than Jewish).

Yea, its funny. But its not bambi-fell-on-the-ice funny. Its if-you-are-religious-you-are-stupid funny. Used to divide a large body of people along religious/ethnic/regional/etc lines, the pointed malicious sarcasm kills the debate by wiping 50% of the truth off the table, stirs the worst in people and provokes knee-jerk reactions. You can see that much is true in the way I responded to you - and I'm an atheist! You think a religious person would smile and say: "yea, ok, you got us there"? I doubt that very strongly.

Hitchens is good at what he does, he feeds his egocentric needs and earns a comfortable living utilizing his skill. You should listen to a debate between him and his own brother on the topic of religion, who by no means has the same eloquence and wit. You can almost smell the atmosphere of profound hate growing in the room based completely on mentioned half-truths. You can also be sure that Hitchens will never attempt to face a calm and reasoning opponent - his sarcasm would just fall flat and that's not TV material.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.

I was reading one of Carl Sagans books, I can't remember which one, but he said something like " Is it more likely the known laws of nature ceased or that a man would tell a lie?"

If he really thinks it is more likely a virgin had a baby rather than it be a lie, bad interpretation, exaggeration, then he obviously wants it to be true and will deny any other possibility. I suggest you invite him/her to visit this site and discuss it.

"Take all the heads of the people
and hang them up before the Lord
against the sun.” -- Numbers 25:4